About your Search

20130201
20130228
STATION
MSNBC 10
MSNBCW 10
CSPAN 4
CSPAN2 2
FBC 2
KNTV (NBC) 2
WRC 2
CNBC 1
KTVU (FOX) 1
WBAL (NBC) 1
WBFF (FOX) 1
WTTG 1
LANGUAGE
English 53
Search Results 0 to 49 of about 53 (some duplicates have been removed)
was meandering toward ending the war in afghanistan and allowing the pentagon and you have to remember when you're looking at the pentagon, you're looking at an institution that has the fine motor skills of a dinosaur. it takes the pentagon a long time to put something together, such as a timetable for withdrawal. all obama has to do, and i know it is not that simple, but i would look at the gorbachev experience. he came in 1985, he gave a speech in 1986 denouncing afghanistan as a bleeding wound. he had secretly told schultz at the military was going to get one year to turn it around. and that they wouldn't be able to. he announced a timetable, and then he was gone and 89. we need to do something similar, the military had its chances, we had 11 commanders in afghanistan in 11 years, take a look at this book by the general, which devotes a lot of attention to this. that is not a war where we can be successful. that is not in the military we have. there is no military that has ever been successful with counterinsurgency. not only that, but they have an ally in pakistan where we survived with bil
into words and the the war afghanistan and he's allowing the pentagon and you have to remember when you're looking at the pentagon you are looking at an institution that has defined motor skills and a dinosaur. if you take the pentagon a long time to put something together all but obama has to do and i know it isn't this simple but i would look at the gorbachev experience. he came out of 1985 he gave the secret speech in 1986 denouncing afghanistan to his fellow bureau colleagues as a bleeding wound he had the moxie secretly tell shultz we were getting out that the military was going to get one year to turnaround and the wouldn't feel to. they announced a timetable and they were gone. we need to do something similar. they had their chances we had 11 commanders and afghanistan in 11 years take a look at thomas rex book the generals that devotes a lot of attention to this isn't a war we can be successful and the kind of military we have. there is no military that had ever been successful in the counterinsurgency where they have a sanctuary. not only did it have a sanctuary but in outlinin
on congress to take action to avoid those massive cuts to pentagon spending known as the sequester which kick in march 1st. if march can't pass a big bill, they ought to pass a small bill to delay the sequester for a few more months. house republicans led by john boehner immediately said no way. here we go again. the party of no opposing anything obama wants. we will tell you about that. also tell you the latest on drones and a lot more here on the full court press. but first, let's get the latest. lisa ferguson is here. well, she is not here. she is in los angeles with today's current news update. hi, lisa. good morning. >> close enough. los angeles, d.c. good morning, everyone. the president is in annapolis today after 10:00 this morning and atends the conference at the western annapolis hotel. vice president biden is swearing in john kerry as secretary at state from the state department and then later this evening, he is speaking at the house democratic issues conference in leesberg virginia. he will lay out a renewed plan for combatting climate change
the pentagon's budget and still protect national security. former defense undersecretary michelle flournoy, if identify got that right -- michelle flournoy, i beg your pardon, she penned an op-ed in the wall street journal this week. joining us is aforementioned michele flournoy. michelle, or undersecretary, which ever you prefer -- >> michelle, please. >> i thought your piece was terrific. sequester or not, defense department is going to lose 10% of its budget and you think there are good ways to do it. walk us through some of the key points. >> i do think the defense budget will come under pressure, even if we do get a deal. there are ways to reduce costs go after the defense enterprise rather than balance the budget on the back of the force. first cutting unnecessary overhead. the pentagon and d.o.d. has grown by more than 100,000 civilians in the last decade. we can pare those back now that we're coming out of a period of war. >> i thought your civilian argument was great. we've been through these wars and you're saying you can take it right back down without losing any national securi
this will mean damaging layoffs of teachersers law enforcement and food safety inspectors and the pentagon will be hit, too. they propose a mix of spending cuts and, yes, more taxes through limiting deductions for the wealthy. i sat down late friday with house democratic leader nancy pelosi and asked her are about the fast approaching deadline. congress woman pa lo pelosi, we back to "fox news sunday." >> welcome to the capitol. >> the white house says sequestration will have a severe effect on many americans. house republicans agree but say the answer is to find other spending cuts, not tax hikes. >> i would think that sequestration is a bad idea all around. this should be something that is out of the question. the fact is we have had plenty of spending cuts. $1.6 trillion in the budget control act. what we need is growth. we he need growth with jobs. and if you have spending cuts education of our children and other investments like the national institutes of health where you are hindering growth you are not delegate t going te deficit. we need more revenue and more cuts. i would like to
conference here at the pentagon briefing room. there are moments when i thought i was part of the last act of an italian opera. you're not sure exactly when it would end, and when the fat lady would sing. >> for now the only certainty is much more congressional uncertainty. joy, does leon panetta need a shirt that says "i survived a chuck hagel filibuster and all i got was this lousy t-shirt?" just when he thinks it can't get worse, it's actually seemingly gotten worse. >> this is insane. i mean, last night i went through, and i was looking at the george w. bush cabinet nominations. none of which were filibustered. just for fun. just because i knew we were talking about it. his second term cabinet nominations, the majority went through by voice vote. they didn't even bother to take a poll of the senate. people like michael mukaze sailed through and alberto gonzalez, who went to the bedside of john ashcroft when he was the chief guy to demand that this sick man, this man who was on his bed barely lucid sign off on wiarrantless wiretapping. we had bin laden -- not filibuster. i mean, the bot
at the department of defense. let's ask the military. >> ask you for an update on pentagon drone operations. >> probably not. >> well, let's hear what you have to say when i ask the question. >> okay. >> it has now been widely acknowledged that the u.s. military earlier this year, the military, pentagon, flew drone operations over pakistan's border region in cooperation with the pakistanis to collect reconnaissance information and show it to them. can you talk about why the u.s. military is now flying drone operations or did fly drone operations over pakistan? >> i can't. i know you say it's widely acknowledged. i don't know how widely anything has been acknowledged on that count. i don't think it's appropriate for me at this podium to discuss operations that may or may not be taking place. >> what concerns do you have that these u.s. government drone strikes in pakistan may be backfiring now and simply creating more enemies of the united states? >> i refer your questions to other people. that's not something we speak to or are involved in. >> who would you refer them to, jeff? where should
his people do every do and confirm from the pentagon knew was in charge with the state department or urgent -- but leon panetta says it is not 911 that when your people are in danger that is more than 911. lou: john bolton serving the government to hear the secretary of defense to realize the outcry and a need warhol from the ambassador and officials from the government as a 911 call and department of defense can respond, how upset were you? >> i was beyond upset and speechless to what the testimony showed. it revealed incompetence at the top of the obama administration that is breathtaking. the president not concerned with americans under attack, secretary of state's all day long never once called to ask what might be done? the idea secretary not aware for request for satiric -- security saying can we help you out? nobody is hauled in this administration with national security. not just the failure of benghazi on negative benghazi but exposing the risk of facilities, citizens and their country to attacks worldwide. these people and not doing their jobs. >> the senior people are n
to start with a washington battle on full display this week when the president's pick to head the pentagon, former republican senator chuck hagel, came under fire from members of his own party during a very contentious confirmation hearing. >> name one person in your opinion who's intimidated by the israeli lobby in the united states senate. >> are we right or wrong? that's a pretty straightforward question. >> senator hagel, please answer the question i asked. today, do you think unilateral sanctions would be a bad idea? >> all this raising questions about how effective chuck hagel will be if confirmed as secretary of defense. earlier this weekend, i sat down for a rare joint interview with the top military leadership the outgoing secretary f defense leon panetta and the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff general martin dempsey. >>> secretary panetta, welcome back to "meet the press." general dempsey, welcome. let me start with the man that is poised to take your place. he underwent on thursday a pretty tough round of questioning. he seemed to struggle with a lot of the answers. of cou
layoffs of teachers, law enforcement and food safety inspectors. and, the pentagon will be hit, too. they propose a mix of spending cuts and, yes, more taxes, through limiting deductions, for the wealthy. i sat down late friday with house democratic leader nancy pelosi and asked her about the fast-approaching deadline. congressman pelosi, welcome back to fox news sunday. >> welcome to the capitol. >> chris: the white house says, sequestration will have a severe effect on many americans. house republicans agree. but they say the answer is to find other spending cuts, not tax hikes. >> well, i think that the sequestration is a bad idea, all around. it is something that is out of the question. the fact is, we have had plenty of spending cuts, $1.6 trillion in the budget control act. what we need is growth, growth with jobs and if you have spending cuts, education of our children, other investments, where you are hindering growth, you are no going to reduce the deficit. so, what we do need is more revenue, and more cuts, but i would like to see that a big, balanced, bold proposal. and s
the pentagon. it has to do with he's been mean to president bush. he's been mean to john mccain. this process has said more about republicans than quite franklin it has said about chuck -- >> what about this issue of him -- is he going to be in charge of the pentagon? >> i think that is going to be the test for chuck hagel when he is sworn in fairly quickly and fairly soon as the next defense secretary. and i think there's no doubt he's going to go into that building and he'll take strong command of it. and that's what is going to be remembered. >> that is the toughest job in washington for the best and most qualified person and this process has weakened him, and his personality is probably not suited for this job. i can assure you of one thing. robert gibbs is going to be very happy he's not standing at that press podium the first time chuck hagel opines about the president's foreign policy and their disagreements on it. >> i can tell you there were a lot of reporters that were answering to be on this trip to brussels. >> the reasons that are being shown to hold up this nomination, it's not
on capitol hill right now on the a hearing for the benghazi terror attack where he addressed the pentagon's response to the assault on our consulate on september 11th. four americans, including our ambassador to libya, died in that attack. this comes just a day after mr. panetta emotionally charged parting speech to students at georgetown university where he blasted the massive defense cuts known as the sequester, set to go into effect just weeks from now. >> if sequester happens, let me tell you some of the results. we will furlough as many as 800,000 dod civilians around the country for up to 22 days. they could face a 20% cut in their salary. you don't think that will impact on our economy? you don't think that's going to impact on jobs? you don't think that's going to impact on our ability to recover from the recession? jon: mr. panetta also deliver ad stark warning about the scale and scope of cyber attacks on this country saying they could cripple the united states. >> we are literally the target of thousands of cyber attacks every day. every day. thousands of sigher about attacks t
them to be moved from the cia back to the pentagon. but the fact is that there has been something like a 700% increase in the use of drones under president obama as compared to george w. bush. >> and andrea, as you know, from your sources at the agency and i know from my sources not only from the agency but in the entire intelligence community when barack obama came into office, they specifically said, they wanted to ramp up drone operations. and they wanted there to be a side-by-side comparison of how many strikes bush did versus how many strikes they did. for brennan to say that he wants to pull back on drone strikes, that's just -- that's just not accurate. and that's not what's been happening since january 20th, 2009. you can go back. and when the history is written, you will go back to january 20th, 2009, and see a very deliberate -- >> executive orders. >> executive orders. and again, i think most americans probably support this policy. so it's not like i'm talking about anything that's going to be scandalous. most people will support the president doing this. but it obviously ca
your perspective on the pentagon's role in securing our embassies? we just had a near suicide attack, if you will, suicide bomber, at an embassy in turkey just last week. what can be done more than what has been done now? >> the important things to do are first of all you've got to build up the host country capacity. in the end, these embassies do depend on host country, the details that provide security. so you've got to try to develop that. >> this shouldn't be more marines? >> no, no. let me get the rest of the part of it. you have to harden these embassies as much as possible. and third, we have been working with the ste department to determine whether additional marines ought to be assigned to that area. and in the end, the final alternative is our ability to respond in having our troops in a position where they can respond quickly. but i have to tell you, a lot of that still is dependent on whether intelligence tells us that we've got a big problem, and gives us enough warning so that we can get to the place to respond. >> did you have enough time to get there in time? >> no. >
lawmakers the pentagon itself is partly to blame. jd gordon, former defense department spokesman for donald rumsfeld and robert gates. honor to have you on our program. >> honor to be here, bill. bill: what do you think about what he is making the point he is making? >> understand that he is frustrated but you know i think a lot of frustration should go back to the obama administration. it was the obama administration insist we have sequester if the debt super-committee failed to reach an agreement and they failed to reach an agreement. i remember very specifically at one of the presidential debates president obama told governor romney sequestration is not going to happen. two weeks away and looks like it will happen. it will be devastating for the military. we're talking about curtailed military operations around the globe. reduced funding for mint nance and training. 800,000 dod citizens are looking for furlough or forced time without pay. this will be devastating and we're just getting started with sequestration. bill: the last point you just made a lot of people haven't talked about. 80
doing this from tsa to the pentagon and you have the white house, i believe, egging them on. it's in the white house' interest to create the most lurid possible story about what the cuts would mean. they want to put them off or substitute tax increases for them. jon: we heard ray lahood talking about airport patrol towers that will be unmanned from midnight on. frankly there are a lot of airport control towers unmanned from midnight on and pilots land anyway. >> the way these things were designed, they were designed to be stupid and designed to make it painful for both sides. so they do something else to reduce the deficit instead, that is not going to happen. the sequester is going to happen march 1st and i think after that at some point hopefully both sides will sit down and figure out a more rational way to allocate these cuts. these cuts should happen. if we can't gut 3% of the budget over ten years we moisture as well declare national bankruptcy right now. jon: interesting that its discretionary funding, and programs that are getting cuts, no cuts from mandatory spending. >
military activity is that nobody in the pentagon would have ordered military act ship without a specific order from the president. and the president wasn't around. rick: i want do ask you both, we have about a minute and a half left. another story came out of these hearings. that is the president himself, rick, himself opposed a plan that was supported by pretty much everybody else in his administration, to try to arm the rebels in syria. what do you make of that? >> you know i think it's remarkable that his team was really recommending that we needed to do something to support what was happening there and identify the opposition, the right opposition and then try to give them some sort of military support. and the president said no. i think this goes back to exactly who he is and what he believes the inate, positive, good of people. i think he doesn't understand, the president doesn't understand, this is a dangerous world and that we need to take sides to make sure that the right people are the ones who take hold in syria. it is the same thing that happened in egypt. really the same thi
when he talks. apparently brennan wants to put them under pentagon control. who knows if that is true but there are three things i was shocked the democrats didn't bring up. and it's three questions that every president obama ditto head has to respond to. i don't like criticizing this but let's be honestly about a couple of things. number 1, the word imminent how that no longer means imminent and it means we think you might do something 20s years from now and that makes you an imminent threat and we have to kill you with with no trial. no. 2 is militant. any male over the age of 16 whose near where one of these bombs goes off is counted as a militant whether they were or not. toe try to talk al-qaeda guys. >> that's how they keep the civilian death tolls low. it's a dirt dirty business. number 3, blowback, what no democrat asked about is every time we kill an america hater with one of these things we are creating untold numbers of new. so it's person pet y'all war. >> i would add a high informed -- highly placed. we don't know who that i
in new york. the pentagon is broken. what do we know about al qaeda? did we know that members of this network, all this information we take for granted now? >> we did not know that much. we did not know who was responsible for 9/11. we had a few assets that provided us some peripheral information. we did not know very much. it took a long time for us to be in a position to really learn what was going on. in march of 2002, we captured al zabeta. we recognized that we had to do something different. contrary to what some people are saying, he initially provided a couple of pieces of information. then he shut down. we knew they were coming after us in the second wave of attacks. we knew that they had a nuclear program. they had a biological weapons program. we thought we needed to do something different. that is when the enhanced interrogation program came into existence. he went through the program, started in august of 2002 for 20 days or so. a few weeks later we captured a major player. he was a go-between. this was the key to all of that. we forget that it was not just osama b
to oppose his nominees for top cabinet slots at the pentagon and cia. republican senator lindsey graham threatened to hold up those picks until the white house delivers more information about the attacks in benghazi. >> i don't think we should allow brennan to go forward for the cia directorship, hagel to be confirmed as secretary of defense until the white house gives us an accounting, did the president ever pick up the phone and call anyone in the libyan government to help these folks? what did the president do? yes, i'm going to ask my colleagues just like they did with john bolton, joe biden said, no confirmation without information. no confirmation without information. >> you are saying that you are going to block the nominations -- you're going to block them from coming to a vote until you get an answer? >> yes. >> now, john mccain has already think that he doesn't think republicans ought to filibuster this. what will you do? you're just going to put a hold on it? >> yeah, i'm not filibustering. this is a national security failure of monumental proportions, and i'm not going to st
Search Results 0 to 49 of about 53 (some duplicates have been removed)